Lec 2 - Turbulence Models and some

applications

Dr. S.Vengadesan
Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai – 36

https://sites.google.com/site/vengadesiitmam/
Equation for the time evolution of ui' u 'j

ui' ui' u  (u ' '

u  u ' '
u ) 1 p '  2 '
ui
 uk  uk
' i
 i k i k
 
t xk xk xk  xi xk xk
Multiply above eqn. with uj’ and the eqn.
below with ui’
u 'j u 'j u j  (u 'j u k'  u 'j u k' ) 1 p '  2u 'j
 uk  uk'   
t xk xk xk  x j xk xk

Add the 2 eqn. and take the average,

 (ui' u 'j )  (ui' u 'j ) u j ui

 uk  u u ' '
 u 'j uk'
t xk xk xk
i k

 (ui' u 'j u k' ) 1  ' p '    2u 'j  2ui' 

' p ' 
  ui uj    ui  uj
' '

xk   x j xi   x x x x k 
k k k

Transport equation for TKE is obtained by contraction

k
 ii
2

2

1 '2
u1  u2'2  u3'2 
k k U i   k 1 ' ' ' 
U j   ij     ui u j u j  p u j 
' '

t x j x j x j  x j 2 
I II III IV V (1) V(2) V(3)
I – Unsteady term ; II – Convection term
III – Production term ; V(1) – Molecular Diffusion term;
V(2) – Turbulent transport term ; IV – Dissipation ui' ui'
V(3) – Pressure diffusion term ;  
xk xk
 Turbulence Modelling - Overview
• Boussinesq (1877) – Eddy viscosity
• It has component velocity and length scale
• Turbulent models that do not provide length scale are “incomplete” –
apriori condition
• Just boundary and/or inlet conditions and no priori knowledge –
“complete”
• Prandtl (1925) – Mixing length hypothesis ;
Kolmogrov (1942) - (k & ω);
Rotta (1951) – second-moment closure;
Launder & Spalding (1972) – k-ε.
• RANS
Algebraic (Zero-equation) Models
One-Equation models
Two-Equation models
Second-order Closure models
• DNS
• LES _________________URANS, Hybrid LES (DES)
 Two Equation Models (2)
Wilcox (1998), k-ω model T   k / 
k k U i  k 
 Uj   ij    k       T  
* *

t x j x j x j
 x j 
   U i    
 Uj    ij         T  
2

t x j k x j x j  x j 
 13 / 25,    o f  ,    o* f  , *

 o  9 /125,  o*  9 /100,   1/ 2,  *  1/ 2
1  70  ij  jk Ski 1 k 
f  ;   ;  
1  80     3 x j x j
* 3
o

1 k  0

f *  1  680  k2    * k and l  k 1/ 2 / 
1  400  2 k  0
 k
 Two Equation Models (3)
Launder & Spalding - Standard K-ε model (1972)

T   k 2 / 
k k U i   k 
 Uj  ij       T /  k  
t x j x j x j
 x j 

   U i 2    
 Uj  C 1  ij  C 2      T /    
t x j k x j k x j  x j 

C 1  1.44, C 2  1.92, C  0.09,  k  1.0,    1.3

Two Equation Models (5) – Disadvantage of k-ε
• Un-isotropy of normal Reynolds stress is not captured by
Boussinesq eddy viscosity concept
• Highly strained flows
• Swirling flows, highly curved stream lines
• Close to wall failure due to . Thus approaching laminar flow
• Weak shear layer
• Do not always satisfy realizability condition ()  ij  0
 RNG 𝑘 − 𝜖 model
● The RNG 𝑘 − 𝜖 model was derived using a rigorous
statistical technique (called renormalization group
theory).
● Renormalise the Navier-Stokes equations, to
account for the effects of smaller scales of motion.
● A modified form of the epsilon equation which
attempts to account for the different scales of motion
through changes to the production term.
● The RNG model has an additional term in its 𝜖
equation that significantly improves the accuracy for
rapidly strained flows.
● The effect of swirl on turbulence is included in the
RNG model, enhancing accuracy for swirling flows
● An analytical formula for turbulent Prandtl numbers.
• An analytically-derived differential formula for
effective viscosity that accounts for low-Reynolds-
number effects. Effective use of this feature does,
however, depend on an appropriate treatment of the
near-wall region.

Transport equations are

𝜕 ρ𝑘 𝜕 ρ𝑘𝑢𝑖 𝜕 μ𝑡 𝜕𝑘
+ = μ+ + 𝑃𝑘 − ρϵ
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑗 σ𝑘 𝜕𝑥𝑗

𝜕 ρ𝑘 𝜕 ρ𝑘𝑢𝑖 𝜕 μ𝑡 𝜕𝑘
+ = μ+ + 𝑃𝑘 − ρϵ
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑗 σ𝑘 𝜕𝑥𝑗
 𝐶μ η3 1 − η η0
𝐶′2ϵ = 𝐶2ϵ +
1 + βη3
Turbulent viscosity being calculated in the same manner as
with the standard k-epsilon model.
1 2
η = 𝑆𝑘 ϵ 𝑆 = 2𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑖𝑗
Model constant are
𝐶μ = 0.0845 𝐶2 ϵ = 1.68
σ𝑘 = 0.7194 η0 = 4.38
σϵ = 0.7194 β = 0.012
𝐶1ϵ = 1.42
● Some workers claim it offers improved accuracy in rotating
flows, although there are mixed results in this regard:
● It has shown improved results for modelling rotating
cavities, but shown no improvements over the standard
model for predicting vortex evolution. It is favoured for
indoor air simulations.
 Improvement: realizable k-ε
• Shares the same turbulent kinetic energy equation as the standard
k- model.
• Improved equation for ε.
• Variable Cμ instead of constant.
• Improved performance for flows involving:
– Planar and round jets (predicts round jet spreading correctly).
– Boundary layers under strong adverse pressure gradients or
separation.
– Rotation, recirculation.
– Strong streamline curvature.
 Realizable k- ε equations
• Distinctions from standard k- model:
– Alternative formulation for turbulent viscosity:
1
k 2 C 
t  C where U *k is now variable.
 Ao  As

• (A0, As, and U* are functions of velocity gradients).
• Ensures positivity of normal stresses: ( u i u j ) 2  u i2 u 2j
• Ensures Schwarz’s inequality: ui2  0

– New transport equation for dissipation rate, :

D   t    2 
        c1S  c2  c1 c3 Gb
Dt x j    x j  k   k

Diffusion Generation Destruction Buoyancy

 SST Model
• Shear Stress Transport (SST) Model
– The SST model is based on the k- model and has the same automatic wall
treatment
– It accounts for the transport of the turbulent shear stress and gives highly
accurate predictions of the onset and the amount of flow separation
– This is a good default choice

k- fails to predict separation

SST result and experiment

Experiment Gersten et al.

 Menter SST model
- 1994
- Combination of k-ε & k-ω model
- Near the wall k-ω model and away from the wall k-ε
  U i   k 
(k) U j (  k )   ij    k 
*
(    k  t ) ,
t x j x j x j  x j 

  v U i    
(  )  U j (  )   ij   2  (     t ) 
t x j vt x j x j  x j 

1 k 
 2(1  F 1 )   2
 x j x j
  F11  (1  F1 )2

- Works very well for flows with strong adverse pressure gradient;
forward & backward facing step
 Low Re-Two Equation Models (1)
Asymptotic Tendency

u A( x, z, t ) y  O( y 2 ) 
3 
v B( x, z, t ) y  O( y )  as
2
y 0
2 

w C ( x, z , t ) y  O ( y ) 
Low Re-Two Equation Models (2)
 Turbulence Near the Wall
• Fewer nodes are needed normal to the wall when wall functions are
used

y y
u u

Wall functions used to Wall functions not used to

resolve boundary layer resolve boundary layer
Boundary layer
 Low Re-Two Equation Models (3)
k-ε model Jones & Launder(1972); Launder & Sharma(1978)
Lam & Bremhorst (1981); Chien (1982)
Nagano & Shimada (1996);
Sarkar & So (1997)

Two–Layer Model Lakehal & Rodi (1997)

k-ω model Wilcox (1993); Peng et al. (1997)
 Low Re-Two Equation Models (4)
General format
2
k k  U    k 
U
x
 V  vT 
y 
   
  v  vT /  k
 
 y  y  y 
   
2 2
    U  
U V  C 1 f1 vT    C 2 f 2  E   v  vT /    
x y k  y  k y  y 
  0  
vT  C f  k 2 / 
k2 k 1/ 2 y u y
ReT  , Ry  , y 
v v v
 0 is the value of ε at the y=0 and is defined differently for each model
 Estimating y+
• It is useful to estimate y+ before obtaining
a solution
– Saves time!

• Use the following formula based on flow

over a flat plate:  13 / 14
Dy  L y 74 Re L
 Dy is the actual distance between the wall and first node
– L is a flow length scale
– y+ is the desired y+ value
– ReL is the Reynolds Number based on the length scale L
 Inlet Turbulence Conditions
• Unless turbulence is being directly simulated, it is accounted
for by modeling the transport of turbulence properties, for
example k and ε
• Similar to mass and momentum, turbulence variables require
boundary condition specifications
– Several options exist for the specification of turbulence quantities at inlets
(details on next slide)
• Unless you have absolutely no idea of the turbulence levels in
your simulation (in which case, you can use the Medium
(Intensity = 5%) option), you should use well chosen values of
turbulence intensities and length scales
– Nominal turbulence intensities range from 1% to 5% but will depend on your
specific application
• The default turbulence intensity value of 0.037 (that is, 3.7%)
is sufficient for nominal turbulence through a circular inlet, and
is a good estimate in the absence of experimental data
 Inlet Turbulence Conditions
• Intensity and Autocompute Length Scale
– This option allows you to specify a value of turbulence intensity but
the length scale is still automatically computed. The allowable
range of turbulence intensities is restricted to 0.1%-10.0% to
correspond to very low and very high levels of turbulence
accordingly. In general, the autocomputed length scale is not
suitable for external flows
• Intensity and Length Scale
– one can specify the turbulence intensity and length scale directly,
from which values of k and ε are calculated
• Low (Intensity = 1%)
– This defines a 1% intensity and a viscosity ratio equal to 1
• Medium (Intensity = 5%)
– This defines a 5% intensity and a viscosity ratio equal to 10
– This is the recommended option if you do not have any information
about the inlet turbulence
• High (Intensity = 10%)
– This defines a 10% intensity and a viscosity ratio equal to 100
 Inlet Turbulence Conditions

• Specified Intensity and Eddy Viscosity Ratio

– Use this feature if you wish to enter your own values for intensity
and viscosity ratio
• k and Epsilon
– Specify the values of k and ε directly
• Zero Gradient
– Use this setting for fully developed turbulence conditions
 Two equation models .. Examples (1)

Backward facing step

Cavity Flow
Two equation models .. Examples (2)

Grid
 Two equation models .. Examples (3)

DNS
 Two equation models .. Examples (4)

DNS
Two equation models .. Examples (5)

Expt.
 Validation
Flow through backward facing step
(i) Domain description
• Expansion ratio (H/h)=1.2
• Flow velocity v=1.49m/s
• Reynolds number based on step height= 5100

y
H
x

5
y/h
1
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
x/h
Computational grid
(iii) Comparison of skin friction
coefficient along the bottom wall of
the BFS
(iii) Comparison of normalized mean velocity profiles at x/h = 4, 6, 10
and 15
3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0
y/h

1.5
DNS (1997)
1.0
standard k-
non-linear k-
0.5 standard k-
non-linear k-
0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

u/U
 Flow past a circular cylinder
(i) Domain description

Outlet
Inlet
y

Cylinder
16D

Cross-stream boundary

7D 20D

x 3D

Spanwise boundary

D
 Results
(ii) Comparison of bulk parameters for flow over circular cylinder at Re =3900
Contribution Model
Cd mean St min/U∞ rmin/D Lr/D

Present 3DNLKE 0.94 0.211 -0.22 0.74 1.39

Present 2DNLKE 0.89 0.195 -0.2 0.61 1.25

Present 3DSKE 0.97 0.182 -0.18 0.81 1.75

-0.24±0.1 0.72±0.1 1.33±0.2

0.98±0.05 0.215±0.005
- (Lourenco & (Lourenco & (Cardel
Exp (Norberg 1997) (Cardel 1993)
Shih 1993) Shih 1993) 1993)

Beaudan & Moin

LES 1.00 0.203 -0.32 0.88 1.36
(1994)

Breuer
LES 1.016 - -0.234 0.91 1.372
(1998)

Lubcke et al.
2D URANS 0.98 0.203 -0.360 0.66 1.2
(2001)

2/22/2019 33
 (iii) Mean streamwise velocity (iv) Comparison of mean
along the wake centerline wall pressure coefficient
1.0
(Cp)
1.5

0.8
1.0 U∞ θ

0.6 Present (3DNLKE)

0.5
Present (2DNLKE)
U1/U∞ Present (3DSKE)
0.4 Breuer (1998)
0.0 Norberg (1987)
0.2

Cp
Present (3DNLKE)
-0.5
Present (2DNLKE)
0.0
Present (3DSKE)
Lourenco & Shih (1993) -1.0
-0.2
Breuer (1998)
Lubcke et al. (2001) -1.5
-0.4

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

x/D
 0.4

0.3 0.3 Exp (LS)

LES (BM)
present (NLKE)
0.2 0.2 present (LKE)

0.1 0.1

u2 0.0
0.0 U 
Cl

-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
-0.4
0.9 1.0 1.1 -2 -1 0 1 2
T y/D

Figure 4. Variation of lift coefficient

with time. Figure 5. Mean cross streamwise velocity profile
at x/D = 1.54
 1.5
1.2

1.0
1.0
0.8
u1
Exp (LS)
U u 0.6
1
0.5 LES (BM)
U
0.4
present (NLKE)

present (LKE)
0.2
0.0
0.0

-0.2
-0.5
-2 -1 0 1 2 -0.4
-2 -1 0 1 2
y/D
y/D
(a). x/D= 1.06
(b). x/D = 1.54

Figure 6. Mean streamwise velocity profile

(legends are same in both plots)
 0.24

0.21
0.14

0.18
0.12

Exp (LS)
0.10 0.15

LES (BM)
0.08 0.12
u2 u 2 present (NLKE)
u1u1
0.06 U 2 0.09
U2 present (LKE)

0.04 0.06

0.02 0.03

0.00 0.00
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
y/D y/D

a. Streamwise Reynolds stress b. Cross- streamwise Reynolds stress

Figure 7. Reynolds stress at x/D=1.54

( legends are same in both plots )
Surface mounted cube in a channel
Surface mounted cube in a channel
SurfaceTwo
mounted
Layercube in (3)
model a channel

LES-One equation
model – Krajnovic et
al. 1999
Surface mounted cube in a channel

LES-One equation
model – Krajnovic et
al. 1999
Surface mounted cube in a channel
Second invariant of velocity
gradient
Time-averaged
quantity

Instantaneous
quantity
 norm-pr
0.6
0.55
0.5
Line of
0.4
0.3
Attachment
0.2
z/h
Xt X 0.1
R1 -0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Line of
-0.4 Separation
T -0.5
-0.6
-0.7
R
(a)
x/h Figure 21. Time
averaged
XR2
M N streamlines and
pressure
5 6y/h 7 8
x/h distribution on

(b) x/h (a) the first grid

point from the
Contd…
bottom wall,
(b) the symmetry
plane.
 improved k-ω

Figure 24. Time averaged Streamlines on the cube

faces

Contd…
 static-temp: 38 41 45 49 55 59 61 64 66 69 73

Y Y

static-temp: 38 41 45 49 64
55 59 61 64 66 69 73
62

57
X 66 65 45 Z 49 5 8
62
Z Y 5 49 X 45
3

41
Y
f low
49 58 2 64 62

57
Z
58 64 62 66 6 65 65 66
45
X

57
X

60.5
static-temp

65.5
66 65 45 45

65
55
73 66 static-temp
69 49 58 49

68
66 53 Z 53 73
41 45 69 64

41
65.5
64 66
61 64
60

55
59 58 64 61 63
62 58

60.5
55 59

68
55

60.5
65
49 63 67
63 66 66 49
45 62

65
64
58
68
45

61
41
38 62 66 41
58

68
38
Y f low 61
61

55
60
X
62
60.5 60.5

55
63

55
Z
60
62
62 62
63

Figure 31. Contours of surface temperature on the

cube faces
GAS TURBINE ENGINE
COMPONENTS

46
• A gas turbine is an internal combustion
engine which produces power by the
controlled burning of fuel
• Has three main components
– Compressor
– Combustion chamber
– Turbine

47
48
49
• Compressor
– To increase the pressure of airstreams
• Combustion chamber
– To provide a stream of hot gas
• Turbine
– To drive compressor and other systems
– Purpose is to convert KE into
mechanical energy

50
 Combustion chamber
• Basic requirements
• Types
• Combustion process
• Performance
• Flame stabilization

51
 Requirements
• It should have high combustion efficiency
and low pressure loss
• To operate with a greatly reduced air
density and mass flow at altitude
• Must be capable of relighting over a wide
range
• Combustor is designed for low exhaust
emissions (NOx)
52
Types of combustion systems
• Can or Tubular
– Number of separate streams each supplying a
separate chamber
• Cannular or Tubo-annular
– Individual flame tubes are uniformly spaced
around the annular casing
• Annular
– Maximum use is made of the space available
– Reduce pressure loss and engine of minimum
diameter
53
 Combustion process
• Overall air/fuel ratio is in the region of 100:1
while stoichiometric ratio is 15:1
• 15-20%of air introduced in the primary zone
• 30% of air introduced in the secondary zone to
complete the combustion
• In the dilution zone remaining air is mixed with
products of combustion to cool
• Second essential feature is to get recirculation
flow pattern

54
 Conventional stabilizer
• fuel is injected in the same direction as the
air stream
• primary air is introduced through a twisted
radial vane, known as swirl vanes
• The net result is that the burning gases
tend to flow towards the region of low
pressure

55
diffuser

56
Swirl stabilized flames

57
58
 Turbulence modelling for TVC
• A new combustor concept employs a vortex that is
trapped in a cavity to stabilize the flame is referred as the
Trapped Vortex (TV) concept.

Courtesy: Ramgen technologies

 How it differs from conventional
• Up to 50% improvement in ignition, blow out, and altitude
relight over current technology
• Operating range 40% wider than conventional
• Combustion efficiency at or above 99%
• Potential to achieve very low single digit NOx
• Main vortex is stationary in a controlled cavity
• Low pressure drop
• No swirl vanes are required for flame stability
• TVC enables improved staged combustion with cavities
as a pilot stage that is continuously operating.
• By employing TVC, a combustor concept could operate
on the cavities alone for all low power conditions
including starting and relight.
 Instantaneous streamline plots for forebody-spindle combination alone

0.05

Frame 001  18 Apr 2007  title r (m) 0 Frame 001  18 Apr 2007  title

0.15 -0.05 0.15

DNS (1998a)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

z (m)
0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05
r (m)

r (m)

0 0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
z (m) z (m)

Non-linear k-ω Modified k-ω

61
 RESIDENCE TIME CALCULATIONS
0.05 injection-1
injection-2
injection-3
injection-4
0.04 0.05
injection-5
r (m)

0.03 0.04

r (m)
0.02 0.03

0.01 0.02
0.05 0.10 0.15
z (m)
0.05
Xc / D0 = 0.4 0.01
0.05 0.10 0.15
z (m)
Xc / D0 = 0.6
0.04
r (m)

0.03

0.02

0.01
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Xc / D0 = 1.2
z (m)

Positions of particles released at different locations inside the cavity obtained using
non-linear k-ω model for different cavity sizes.
62
SOME IMPORTANT JOURNALS
l. Journal of Fluid Mechanics
2. Physics of Fluids
3. Experiments In Fluids
4. Fluid Dynamic Research
5. ASME J.Fluids Engg.
6. AIAA Journal
7. Journal of Aircraft
8. Aeronautical Journal
9. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Fluids
10. Journal of Computational Physics
11. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
12. Progress In Aerospace Sciences
13. Computers and Fluids
14. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion
15. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow
Reference books on TURBULENT FLOWS
1. Batchelor, G.K., Theory of homogeneous turbulence", Cambridge
University Press (1953).
2. Bradshaw, P. , (Editor) "Turbulence" Springer Verlag (1976).
3. Hinze, J.O. , "Turbulence" McGraw Hill (1975).
6. Launder, B.E. and Spalding, D.B. , "Mathematical models of turbulence"
Academic Press (1972).
7. Lesieur, M. "Turbulence in fluids" Martinus Nijhoff (1987).
8. Schlichting, H. "Boundary Layer Theory" Mc Graw Hill (1979).
9. Tennekes, H. and Lumley,J.L. "A first course on turbulence" MIT Press
(1972).
10.Townsend, A.A. "The structure of turbulent shear flows" Cambridge
University (1976), 2nd edition.
11. Pope S.B. (2000) "Turbulence" Cambridge University Press.
12. Durbin, P .A. and Paterson. Reif, B.A. (2001) "Statistical theory and
modeling for turbulent flows" John Wiley.
13, Biswas, G. and Eswaran, V. C. (2002) "Turbulent flows" Narosa
Publishing House New Delhi.
14. Davidson, P.A. (2007), “Turbulence”, Oxford University Press.